342 



was so small that the fish jumped out before we could land 

 it and swam under the tug. Later in the day we had to go 

 into dock to tow out a steamer, and passing in I saw the 

 fish coming out, swimming on the surface, and this time we 

 used a larger landing net and secured the fish. I believe 

 the fish came to the surface of the water warmed by the 

 sun's rays, because it found it unusually cold below." Our 

 thanks are due and are tende:ifed to Capt. Hipkins for the 

 trouble he took in securing the stranger, and also for so 

 promptly sending it to the Museum. 



Bennett called his fish the ''Australasian Remora," but 

 did not state whence it was obtained, nor did he definitely 

 claim it as a new species; there does not, however, appear 

 to be any earlier reference to the name Echeneis australis. 

 He writes: — "One individual we captured, and which was by 

 no means the largest we observed, measured one foot five inches 

 in length, and was proportionately broad. Of three examples, 

 one only had 24 striae on the buckler; the other two had 26." 

 The radial formulae of Bennett's specimens may be thus 

 expressed : — 



B. X.; D. xxiv.-xxvi. 21; P. 20+?; V. 5; A. 24; 

 C. 20. 



Grifiiths(i) used the name ''Australasian Remora" under 

 a plate of Echeneis naucrates and indexed it as "Australian 

 Remora"; Day (2) improperly quotes the entry as Echeneis 

 a list rails. 



Giinther had two specimens from the Indian Ocean; the 

 larger measured 23 in. (585 mm.) in length, but was stuffed, 

 so that the proportions and dimensions given are those of 

 the smaller example, 7 in., 11 lines (202 mm.). The lateral 

 line is not m^entioned ; it is shown in the figure, but not 

 quite correctly. The disc is quite flat in the fresh fish, but 

 curls up at the edges after preservation, and in this condition 

 is described by Giinther, otherwise his account may be well 

 applied to my example. 



Jordan and Evermann include Rerfuler/ia australis as a 

 North American species on the record of Liitken, but in the 

 synonomy given they credit Bennett with "Plates 24-26." 

 The "whaling voyage" was not illustrated with plates, and 

 one may notice as suggestive of the possible source of error 

 that the dorsal striae in Bennett's specimens are expressed as 

 "24-26." 



Although the fish was named "Australasian Remora," 

 evidently to be read in the sense australis (southern), Ben- 

 nett did not approach the coast of New Holland nearer than 



(1) Griflaths, in Cuvier, Animal Kingdom, x., Pisces, 1834. 



(2) Day, Fishes of India, 1878, p. 257. 



